Discussion about key facts in energy, environment, the economy, and politics. Tired of ideological junk? This is your place.

Monday, July 2, 2012

Shale Gas Causes First Quarter 2012 US Carbon Emissions To Plummet Again

For US energy-related carbon emissions, fuel switching to gas is back to the future. After the first quarter, the USA's 2012 emissions are falling sharply again and may drop to 1990 levels, or just slightly above that important milestone, according to data in EIA's latest Monthy Energy Review. eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf.

America's energy related carbon emissions fell about 7.5%, during the first three months of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011. And first quarter 2012 emissions are approximately 8.5% lower than emissions in the first quarter of 2010.

Total energy carbon emissions were 5,473 million tons in 2011 and last year fell below the 1996 mark of 5,501 million tons.

The first quarter 2012 reduction of 7.5% makes it possible that this year emissions will fall back essentially to the 1990 level of 5,039 million tons. That is shockingly good news.

The 1990 level of carbon emissions is an important measuring stick, as it is often used as a critical data point for judging progress in reducing a nation's carbon emissions.

Why are US carbon emissions plummeting back to 1990 levels?

First and foremost are sharp reductions from electric power production, as a result of fuel switching from coal to gas, rising renewable energy production, and increasing efficiency. Yet, the shale gas revolution, and the low-priced gas that it has made a reality, is the key driver of falling carbon emissions, especially in the last 12 months.

As of April, gas tied coal at 32% of the electric power generation market, nearly ending coal's 100 year reign on top of electricity markets. Let's remember the speed and extent of gas's rise and coal's drop: coal had 52% of the market in 2000 and 48% in 2008.

Apart from power production, reductions of carbon emissions from the transportation sector since 2007 are pushing down US Carbon emissions. First quarter 2012 transportation emissions declined by about 0.6%, compared to the same period in 2011. Rising fuel efficiency and some switching to lower carbon fuels are the main causes of falling transportation emissions.

The bottom line is that America's carbon emissions may drop back close to 1990 levels this year. That result would have been thought impossible, even at the end of 2011.

But the shale gas revolution makes a reality many things recently thought impossible. It was thought impossible to slash carbon US carbon emissions back to 1990 levels by 2012. It was thought impossible to massively, quickly cut carbon emissions and, at the same time, have lower energy bills.

Shale gas production has slashed carbon emissions and saved consumers more than $100 billion per year. Truly astonishing!

43 comments:

Even though carbon emissions are falling, this data does beg the question as to how much owners of coal-fired power plants may have actually BENEFITTED had Congress passed a national cap and trade program. After all, these plants are being displaced now and not earning any revenue for that displaced power, whereas with cap and trade at least they would've had allowances to sell (presuming, as I think would've been likely, incumbent owners of emitting resources had been granted allowances). It would be interesting for someone to look at that question, and given today's current market conditions, the unexpected answer might be that coal plant owners may actually have BENEFITTED from the implementation of a modest national carbon cap and trade program.

While there are a few coal plants being shuttered, most of the difference is that plants are changing from coal to NatGas as a source.

As for those plants which have shuttered having benefited from a cap and trade program, they would have had to 'buy indulgences' for their CO2 emissions, thereby increasing their costs and making them less competitive. Better that they have shuttered and we are seeing a market-based shift to NatGas, which is actually reducing the cost of energy, reducing CO2 emissions radically, while not redistributing money from cap and trade indulgences.

Salutations,Do you think it at all noteworthy that from an economic standpoint you did not then create any jobs - the point on attendance applying to renewables applies to economic, social and environmental - and to not develop this initiative you also neglect other opportunities. Yes gas too along with a variety of initiatives will reduce - that we could avoid it all together - I own I have not yet to read the attached and to understand signatories of UNFCCC - GREAT WORK and to mention primary and secondary Kind regardsCaroline

Do we know how much fugitive methane emissions are associated with fracking? Could those powerful greenhouse gas emissions significantly diminish (or negate?) the climate benefit of reduced CO2 emissions?

There are 5 studies that do a lifecycle analysis of gas versus coal emissions, including methane leakage, that conclude gas emits 50% less carbon/heat trapping pollution than coal. The studies include NETL, Carnegie Mellon University (partially funded by the Sierra Club), Worldwatch Institute, work to be false.

There is 1 study from Howarth that concludes gas is as dirty as coal. It has been appropriately shredded by another group of Cornell researchers as well as the CMU, University of Maryland and others.

The EPA adopted new air emission rules in April, 2012 that will slash methane emissions again...by as much as 90%.

Howarth himself has said that the EPA final air rules would make gas cleaner than coal.

You actually TRUST the Feds to run a honest and clean cap and trade policy? After GE, the fall of the CCX and tons of "crony capitalism" I highly doubt it. IMO, it would of just been another gov't scam.

Considering the government's war on coal via the EPA, it would of been a moot point.

The shale gas boom is market drivin!!! Gotta luv it.

Just one thing, hope the Feds don't F**k up fracking with EPA regs....oh crap, too late!!!

Obama and the EPA are messing up record gas production! Seriously? The President has repeatedly said gas is good for the country. Lisa Jackson has repeatedly said that fracking can be done responsibly. Their actions have generally been restrained and designed to address reasonable concerns, such as the air emission final rule in April that most of industry and environmentalists accepted. President Obama has overseen record gas production, booming domestic oil production, and declining imports. Those are the facts.

Salutations,No sorry but the inputs do actually conclude otherwise - I am not addressing the infrastructure, shipping, business as usual back of office or the factory as they case maybe - just as a source of energy expended from heat and power these greenhouse gases do vary - you make the point too yes its depends on the installation how efficient is that as much as. Thanks for engaging here too. Kind regards Caroline

The first quarter was the 4th warmest winter on record. Lower space heating requirements would have reduced both natural gas and distillate consumption and carbon emissions. So how much of the year over year decline was weather related and how much was coal to gas substitution?

The comparison is the first quarter of 2012 to first quarter of 2011, not to the 4th quarter of 2011. Weather probably played a role. But coal went from about 44% of electricity generation in 1st quarter of 2011 to 36% in first quarter of 2012. That is an 8 percentage point decline that would amount to about 340 million tons or approximately 45 million tons per percentage point. Assuming gas displaced all 8% points of coal generation (a conservative assumption), then the net carbon reduction would be about 170 million tons.

Saw a presentation by DrillingInfo in London last week where they said the US switch to natural gas from coal equated to the carbon impact of 15 million cars off the road.

Natural gas isn't perfect but it isn't perfectly evil either. We have allegations, but no proof of shale causing people's hair to fall out etc, but coal contributes to 13,000 death a year according to the American Lung Association Here in the UK, using diesel, which can be substituted with gas in at least freight uses, contributes to an overall eight months off life expectancy and the WHO says the impact of diesel is equal to that of passive smoking.Some perspective is sorely needed

Salutations,Yes some of the figures are wonderful and small change can make a big difference - that this allows for solution providers. That we are talking of consequences that have significant economic, social and environmental implications. Said with equal measure of rancour and regard I am sure you will appreciate.Kind regardsCaroline

Wasn't it an unusually temperate winter? Might that have something to do with it? I remember that one of the criticisms of the dropping unemployment rate was that it was seasonally adjusted, but there wasn't much season to adjust for, so it ended up being over-corrected.

President Obama has overseen record gas production, booming domestic oil production, and declining imports. Those are the facts.

--------------------------

Those might be the facts. The question is who is responsible for them? Gas production is from the states & the private sector. "Booming" (who defines booming? Obama? The EPA?) oil production is from permits issued for drilling BEFORE Obama took office. He has cut drilling on federal land. The declining imports IMO are more from the recession than anything Obama has done. Obama is no friend to the oil & coal industries.

The private sector is mostly responsible for booming oil and gas production. But President Obama has not stopped it at all, despite the Gulf Coast disaster that was a horrendous failure that killed 11 and caused massive economic and environmental damage. I will check but I believe production on federal lands is also up. The decline in oil imports is huge and results from three factors: sharply rising domestic oil production; growing substitutes for oil like biofuels, CNG, electricity; and rising fuel efficiency. The US's GDP is bigger than it was in 2007, at the start of the recession/depression. GDP has increased every quarter since July 1, 2009. Decline in oil imports is again due to rising domestic oil production, higher use of oil substitutes, and much higher fuel efficiency. President Obama raised the CAFE standards twice.

The reduction in carbon emissions is truly great news. The question now is will we make good use of this temporary boon. Will we simply use more energy since, with the competition from inexpensive gas, all fossil fuel will be cheaper. Will we use all the revenue from this windfall to put in more solar electric and wind generation. More likely the cheap fuel will stifle the installation of renewable energy and we will have much further to fall when this gas runs out in a couple of decades. And there will be no net of renewable energy to catch us.

Renewables are booming around the world, including in the US. Wind has more than doubled its capacity in the US since 2008, increasing to about 55,000 megawatts by the end of this year. Solar will have increased by more than 15 times in the USA from 2008 to 2012. Prices of solar and wind have declined substantially since 2008. Both now can be competitive in certain markets--strong wind or solar resources and high electric prices. I am optimistic about the future of renewables.

To repeat, coal was 44% of all electric generation in 2010 and about that number in the first quarter of 2011. Gas prices declined substantially in the second half and especially 4th quarter of 2011. Coal's share of generation fell to 36% for the first quarter of 2012. Its share fell to 32% in April. Each percentage point decline in coal reduces carbon emissions by about 45 million tons. It is huge.

On oil, fuel efficiency is playing a major role, Fuel efficiency, more biofuels, more gas displacing oil, even electricity displacing oil are all reasons why oil demand peaked in 2007 and is back to 1999 levels. I have repeatedly posted on declining oil demand due to efficiency and substitutes.

Forget about first quarter 2012 emissions. The warm weather means that your year over year reduction in emissions due to substitution from coal to natural gas in electrical generation is overstated. The only issue was by how much.

Now the important matter. Declining demand is the major factor in the reduced import share of consumption. Period. Increased domestic production is the secondary factor. Substitution to biofuels, CNG, electricity; and rising fuel efficiency are tertiary factors.

For the sake of simplicity, if domestic consumption of crude oil and product in the near term peak year of 2005 is 20 million bpd and it declines by 1.8 million bpd in 2012, and domestic production increases by 0.9 million bpd, then the ratio of demand decline to domestic production is 2:1. By arithmetic, declining demand is twice as important as rising domestic production, ceteris paribus, in explaining the decline in the import ratio. There is no evidence in the record that the entire demand decline of 9.4% since 2005 is due to efficiency and substitutes. Furthermore, a reasonable 1% annual efficiency gain is offset by a 1% increase in population growth.

We will see. But warmer weather affects total demand. It does not cause a massive drop of market share for coal that is mainly baseload generation. Coal historically has a higher market share in the first quarter of any year. Coal got displaced massively by gas and not warm weather. Thinking the opposite defies all the market data reported by EIA.

Demand for oil is down why? Fuel efficiency and increasing use of oil substitutes. More domestic production does not impact demand much at all and might actually marginally increase it. More domestic production impacts the amount of oil imports, however.

This isn't the right way to fight the junk science of the climate change alarmists. The man made global warming theory is totally bogus. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It's plant food for god's sake. Why are you implying that reducing CO2 levels is a good thing?

By doing this you only encourage the lies, and give credence to their other bogus claims like ocean acidification.

The junk science is advanced by those who say carbon dioxide and 5 other gases don't trap heat. They of course do. The junk science is advanced by those who say that raising atmospheric concentrations of heat trapping gas does not raise temperatures. it does and already has. Those who deny climate change again have a lot in common with those who deny gas is cleaner burning and is slashing carbon emissions.

Nobody denies that climate changes, nor does anyone deny that the greenhouse gasses do have a very small warming effect. The issue is whether man's use of fossil fuels is the culprit in the equation, and the answer to that is no for the following reasons.

Of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, only 4% comes from our use of fossil fuels. With atmospheric CO2 levels currently at approx 390ppm, that means that our use of fossil fuels is responsible for 16ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's one part CO2 for every 62,500 parts of the atmosphere. And based on that, the alarmists say that we're destroying the planet? Give me a break!

The entire greenhouse gas theory is exaggerated out of all proportion. Over 95% of greenhouse gas consists of water vapor. The other gasses account for the other 4%, most of which is CO2. We account for 4% of that. So what? CO2 is plant food. Without it, nothing would be green.

Legitimate atmospheric physicists like Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, have determined that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause a rise of approx 1 degree Celsius. With 96% of total CO2 coming from natural sources, it's a bit absurd to claim that our use of fossil fuels is causing climate change. Do we have an effect? Yes, but other things we do have a cooling effect, and nobody knows whether the net signature of man is warming or cooling. One thing is certain, and that's the fact that if we are causing any warming, it's local (urban heat island effect) and in statistically insignificant amounts.

The other thing that's certain is that actual climate change is caused by the sun. Rising temperatures are the primary cause of rising levels of CO2. The reason for this is that when temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 in water diminishes, causing CO2 to rise up out of the oceans, our primary CO2 sink. Rising levels of CO2 are caused by warming, not vice versa.

Another factor here is that WARMING IS GOOD!

Where did anyone ever get the absurd idea that warming was harmful? The only type of climate change that's potentially harmful to man is cooling, because crops don't grow well when it gets cold, and when that happens people starve and die. Man and all other life forms have always prospered during the earth's warm periods and suffered and starved during its cold ones.

We've been conned into thinking that we're a blight on the planet. We've been conned into using meaningless terms like carbon footprint. The only people who leave a carbon footprint on earth are coal miners when they're leaving the mines. CO2 is not carbon. They want us to equate it with coal dust. It's not the same thing. CO2 is a clear, odorless and tasteless beneficial trace gas.

The entire Global Warming movement is a hoax, in that the warming that has occurred has not been unusual, is not excessive (the planet is still relatively cool right now) and is completely natural. The Little Ice Age lasted over 400 years, we're still coming out of it. There is nothing wrong with our climate. We are not in any danger.

So it makes no sense for us to pay lip service to this monumental scientific hoax, by applauding reductions in CO2 and by ragging on Al Gore because of his huge carbon footprint. The more CO2 he produces the better. We should hate Gore because he's a liar and a con man, not because of the size of his electric bill.

Global Warming is a hoax. Really? Warming is just good. Really? The overwhelming majority of national academies of sciences around the world, including the US National Academy of Science are engaged in a hoax. Really? Is Lindzen the only legitimate scientist? Or is he an outlier? Even he has said warming is taking place. There are 100 scientists equally credentialed to Lindzen and they think to put it politely that he is wrong. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson too does not believe this stuff. He says it is real but is an engineering problem and we will adapt. We see every year how it is going.

And yes, warming is good! How many people do you know who go to Northern Greenland to escape the summer's heat by comparison to those you know who go to Florida & other points south to escape the winter's cold?

And yes, a huge number of so called scientists are involved in a hoax, including prestigious organizations such as The American Physical Society (APS). Ayn Rand said:

"If the term "free scientific inquiry" is redundant, the the term "government scientific inquiry" is a contradiction in terms."

Over $50 billion dollars has been handed out to scientists who were willing to prostitute themselves to the political agenda of the UN and the major governments of the world, by producing "pseudo-science" papers and reports that back up this absurd theory.

At the most recent (2012) meeting of Nobel Laureates, a physics prize winner, Ivar Giaver gave a wonderful speech (google Ivar Giaever climate speech) explaining why he had resigned from the APS, because of their endorsement of AGW theory. He calls it "pseudo science" and his explanation and presentation is most interesting. I highly recommend it.

Yes... Professor Lindzen agrees that warming has taken place, but he categorically denies that the warming was caused by man or by greenhouse gasses. He has specifically shown that temperature change drives CO2 levels, not vice versa as the AGW theory claims. BTW: 100 scientists equally credentialed as Dr. Lindzen do not exist. As the leading atmospheric physicist at MIT, Dr. Lindzen is one of a handful of the world's top experts on the subject.

He also points out, rightly, that in the last hundred years, the earth's average temperature has risen by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius. In a system where temperatures can change 10 or 20 degrees in a matter of days or even hours, the fact that the system has varied on average by less than 1 degree over 100 years, points to what, by any rational observer's standards, must be seen as a remarkably stable system.

As far as the so called consensus of scientists is concerned, that is one of the most pernicious parts of the AGW hoax. Have you heard about the Petition Project? Google it if you haven’t and look at it.

31,487 American scientists including over 9,000 with PhDs, have signed this petition which categorically states that the AGW theory is bogus

While you're on the petition page, click on the link titled "Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research" It will show a page titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" Click on the chart in the lower right hand part of the page and enlarge it so it shows clearly. All of the evidence you need to understand why the AGW theory is bogus is right there in that chart. Look specifically at the period from the 1940's thru the late 1970's. If rising levels of CO2 cause temperatures to go up, then why, during that period, when CO2 levels were rising at their most rapid rate in the last hundred years, did temperatures drop steadily for over 35 years? Now compare the temperature record with the levels of solar activity for the same period. Is it that hard to see the causal relationship there?

If temperature rise is caused by increasing levels of CO2 & other greenhouse gasses, why is it that the temperatures on Mars & Jupiter's moons has been rising with the earth's since the late 1970's? Do you suppose that it was caused by SUV emissions?

Did you know that a lawsuit was filed in the British High Court, demanding that Al Gore's sic-fi horror thriller movie could not be shown to British schoolchildren because it violated a British law prohibiting the political indoctrination of schoolchildren? At trial, the plaintiffs were allowed to argue 9 of the major points made in the film, and the judge found that all 9 were either false or greatly exaggerated. The case was settled with an agreement that a disclaimer had to be read to students before it could be shown, stating that the ideas in the film were inconsistent with mainstream scientific thought on the subject. See Lord Monckton's paper on the subject: Google “Monckton 35 Inconvenient Truths”

The earth has warmed 0.8 degrees over the last hundred years. That's a fact.... but so what? During the middle ages, temperatures were at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than they are now. There were thriving vineyards in Northern Scotland at the time. There is nothing unusual or extreme about our planet's climate. There is no climate crisis, and CO2 & warming are good!

Plummeting CO2 levels are nothing to celebrate, and they're not the proper rationale for fighting against our current administration's war on fossil fuels and the American economy. See: Google “American Thinker The Global Warming Hoax”

"Lincoln, Virginia has had 1281 days since 1901 over 95 degrees. 87% of those hot days occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm CO2. There is no connection between heatwaves in DC and CO2 – and anyone who claims there is, is either an idiot or a liar.

The 1930s saw 268 days over 95F, or an average of twenty-seven days per year.

By contrast, the decade from 2000 to 2009 saw only 43 days over 95 degrees, or an average of four days per year.

The current decade has averaged twelve days per year over 95F.

Very hot days were three to seven times more common during the 1930s, than they have been since the year 2000."

The primary cause of climate change is changing levels of solar activity. Sunspots.... CO2 levels are a byproduct of that... not its cause.

Your Honor, could you please instruct the witness to answer the question!

The question, Mr. Hanger is this: What specific petroleum substitutes and their volumes and energy density (I will preempt you and link to no increased ethanol production in the last 2 years) and efficiencies have substituted for a 1.8 million bpd decline in consumption of petroleum products since 2005?

The decline in oil demand reflects greater fuel efficiency. Cars are about 18% more fuel efficient than the ones they replace. The decline in oil demand reflects increasing biofuels that displace oil; The decline in oil demand reflects increasing natural gas for heating replacing heating oil. The decline in oil demand reflects increasing natural gas to replace oil used for electricity...see FPL's closure of oil plants and switch to gas as examples. The decline in oil demand reflects small decrease in vehicle miles traveled. The decline in oil demand reflect rising cng use by Waste Management and many other fleet operators. More than 25% of new buses bought run on cng now.

The carbon emissions per capita is even more impressive. Just did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation. If we return to 1990 or 1991 levels of carbon emissions, per capita that will represent a 20% decline in carbon emissions over the time period. Is this an indication of a kuznets curve in play?

1 - The private sector is mostly responsible for booming oil and gas production. But President Obama has not stopped it at all,

2 - I will check but I believe production on federal lands is also up.

3 - The decline in oil imports is huge and results from three factors:------------------------

1 - I don't think he can stop it. No federal land or permits involved in most cases.

2 - If it is, it has nothing to do with Obama's policies. He's cut the federal permits issued.

3 - I don't dispute the things you listed. IMO the recession & higher gas prices are a bigger reasons.

Let's say the economy starts growing at 3-4%, unemployment drops to 5%, & gas falls to $2.10 per gallon or lower. You honestly believe oil consumption & CO2 won't rise? It will take years to reach the above numbers, so its hard to prove one way or the other. To say the recession played no or only a small roll in the drop is way off base IMO.

US GDP is now bigger than it was prior to the recession/depression that began November 2007. GDP has grown every quarter since july 2009. Would the economy be still bigger without the disaster that began in 2007? Of course. Would oil demand be higher than it is today had their been no 2007-2009 economic disaster? Yes. But the fundamental change in oil demand and oil imports have to do with the growth of fuel efficiency in cars, oil substitutes growing like biofuels and natural gas, domestic oil production going up...

Since 2009, off-shore oil production has fallen by 35,000 barrels per day. Like the overall production figures, the true off-shore decline is obscured by an increase in production from 2009-2010.

If one excludes the trend of increased off-shore production, Obama inherited and measures the decline in off-shore production from its highest point during his administration, off-shore oil production has fallen by 285,000 barrels per day.

cnsnews March 23, 2012

A new report by Congress' research division says U.S. oil production is up under President Obama, but almost all of the expansion of oil production in the U.S. came on non-federal land, not on leases from the federal government.

The report, dated Tuesday and provided to the press late Wednesday by Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, found that "about 96 percent of the increase [in oil production] since 2007 took place on non-federal lands."

The decline in oil demand in the transportation sector is vehicle miles driven. The decline in the last 4 years is unprecedented in the data series going back to 1987. It has nothing to do with fuel efficiencies or substitution.

If you search "oil imports down in America" you get lots of info about fuel efficiencies & substitution. To say they have nothing to do with the reduction is IMO wrong. I was surprised to see how much. Natural Gas is a big factor. The govt will find a way to mess it up. Maybe not Obama, but in the future for sure. They'll see money to be made (tax the crap out of it) add some new regulations to protect a lizard..etc etc. JMO

Excellent article. Can you provide any further information regarding the data behind the $100 billion per year in fuel cost savings. I can find all other data behind your results but I am having trouble developing data for this figure. Thanks for your help.

About Me

I am an expert on energy, environment, green economy, competitive electric markets, and utility regulation with unique experience in and out of government. I am a Democratic candidate for Governor of PA. See www.hangerforgovernor.com. You can email me at john@hangerforgovernor.com. I have been both the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. I have made leading regulatory decisions, testified to Congress and state legislatures, and been interviewed countless times, appearing on CBS evening News, NBC Evening New, CNN, BBC, CBC, and many more outlets. I am a 1984 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and 1979 graduate of Duke University.